IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-S) 


k 


ij. 


s%^ 


{/  \^'i^ 


A 


/a 


1.0 


I.I 


2.8 


1^ 


IL25  II  u 


2.5 

IE 
1.6 


Photographic 

^Sciences 

Corporation 


23  MEST  ^tAIH  STPEET 

WEBSTER  N.Y.  ]45eO 

(716)  872.4503 


iV 


qv 


'6^ 


<> 


^*~»* 


'9> 


V 


o^ 


# 


f 

o 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHM/ICMH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  Microreproductions  /  Institut  Canadian  de  microreproductions  historiques 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes/Notes  techniques  et  bibltographiques 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best 
original  copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this 
copy  which  may  be  bibliographically  unique, 
which  may  alter  any  of  the  images  in  the 
reproduction,  or  which  may  significantly  change 
the  usual  method  of  filming,  are  checked  below. 


L'Institut  a  microfilmd  le  meilleur  exemplaire 
qu'il  lui  a  6t6  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details 
de  cet  exemplaire  qui  sont  peut-dtre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibliographique,  qui  peuvent  modifier 
une  image  reproduite,  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une 
modification  dans  la  mdthodu  normale  de  filmage 
sont  indiqu6s  ci-dessous. 


The 
tot 


The 
pos 
oft 
filrr 


□ 

□ 
n 

□ 

n 


D 


Coloured  covers/ 
Couverture  de  couleur 

Covers  damaged/ 
Couverture  endommagee 

Covers  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restaurde  et/ou  pellicul6e 

Cover  title  missing/ 

Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 

Coloured  maps/ 

Cartes  g^ographiques  en  couleur 

Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)/ 
Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 

Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations/ 
Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 

Bound  with  other  material/ 
Relie  avec  d'autres  documents 

Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion 
along  interior  margin/ 

La  reliure  serree  peut  cauier  de  I'ombre  ou  de  la 
distortion  le  long  de  la  marge  int^rieure 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  te>xt.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  se  peut  que  certaines  pages  blanches  ajout^es 
lors  d'une  restauration  apparaissent  dans  le  texte, 
mais,  lorsque  cela  dtait  possible,  ces  pages  n'ont 
pas  et6  filmdes. 


n 
n 


V 


D 

n 
n 

D 

D 


Coloured  pages/ 
Pages  de  couleur 

Pages  damaged/ 
Pages  endommag^es 

Pages  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Pages  restaur^es  et/ou  pellicul6es 

Pages  discoloured,  stamed  or  foxed/ 
Pages  d6color6es,  tachetdes  ou  piqu^es 

Pages  detached/ 
Pages  d^tach^es 

Showthrough/ 
Transparence 

Quality  of  print  varies/ 
Qualite  in^gale  de  I'impression 

Includes  supplementary  material/ 
Comprend  du  materiel  supplementaire 

C.ily  edition  available/ 
Seule  Edition  disponible 

Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc.,  have  been  refilmed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Les  pages  totalement  ou  partiellement 
obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  d'errata,  une  pelure, 
etc.,  ont  6t6  filmdes  d  nouveau  de  facon  d 
obtenir  la  meilleure  image  possible. 


Ori] 
beg 
the 
sior 
othi 
firsi 
sior 
ori 


The 
sha 
TIN 

whi 

Mai 
diff 
enti 
beg 
righ 
req( 
met 


n 


Additional  comments:/ 
Commentaires  suppldmentaires; 


This  item  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  film6  au  taux  de  reduction  indiqu6  ci-dessous. 


10X 


14X 


18X 


22X 


26X 


30X 


7 


12X 


16X 


20X 


24X 


28X 


32X 


tails 

du 
adifier 

une 
Tiage 


The  copy  filmed  here  hes  been  reproduced  thenks 
to  the  generosity  of: 

University  of  British  Columbia  Library 


The  imeges  appearing  here  are  the  best  quality 
possible  considering  the  condition  and  legibility 
of  the  original  copy  and  in  keeping  with  the 
filming  contract  specifications. 


L'exemplaire  filmi  fut  reproduit  grAce  A  la 
g6n6rosit6  de: 

University  of  British  Columbia  Library 


Les  images  suivantes  ont  6t6  reproduites  avec  le 
plus  grand  soin,  compte  tenu  de  la  condition  et 
de  la  nettet^  de  l'exemplaire  tilmi,  et  en 
conformity  avec  les  conditions  du  contrat  de 
filmage. 


Original  copies  in  printed  paper  covers  are  filmed 
beginning  with  the  front  cover  and  ending  on 
the  last  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres 
sion,  or  the  back  cover  when  appropriate.  All 
other  original  copies  are  filmed  beginning  on  the 
first  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, and  ending  on  the  last  page  with  a  printed 
or  illustrated  impression. 


Les  exemplaires  originaux  dont  la  couverture  en 
papier  est  imprimie  sont  filmis  en  commengant 
par  le  premier  plat  et  en  terminant  soit  par  la 
dernidre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration,  soit  par  le  second 
plat,  salon  le  cas.  Tous  les  autres  exemplaires 
originaux  sont  film6s  en  commen9ant  par  la 
premiere  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration  et  en  terminant  par 
la  dernidre  page  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 


The  last  recorded  frame  on  each  microfiche 
shall  contain  the  symbol  -^^  (meaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  the  symbol  y  (meaning  "END  "), 
whichever  applies. 


Un  des  symboles  suivants  apparaitra  sur  la 
dernidre  image  de  cheque  microfiche,  selon  le 
cas:  le  symbole  — «►  signifie  "A  SUIVRE",  le 
symbols  V  signifie  "FIN". 


Maps,  plates,  charts,  etc.,  may  be  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Those  too  large  to  be 
entirely  included  in  one  exposure  are  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hand  corner   left  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  framt  j  as 
required.  The  following  diagrams  illustrate  the 
method: 


Les  cartes,  planches,  tableaux,  etc.,  peuvent  dtre 
filmds  A  des  taux  de  reduction  diffdrents. 
Lorsque  le  document  est  trop  grand  pour  dtre 
reproduit  en  un  seul  clichd,  il  est  filmd  d  partir 
de  Tangle  supdrieur  gauche,  de  gauche  d  droite, 
et  de  haut  on  bas,  en  prenant  le  nombre 
d'images  ndcessaire.  Les  diagrammes  suivants 
illustrent  la  mdthode. 


rrata 
to 


pelure, 

n  d 


□ 


32X 


1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

6 

g^-piwi  .iir'i  i^y  w)jiknp>-^'j  4'^-'yTi 


,>^  ^//m't'eAif/y  fj/^Mrf/ui/t  UffM^tA^ 


I  y 


";    K  (. 


f:s 


^  .1 


'S 


<4 


THE  CANADIAN   FISHERIES  DISPUTE; 


•V 


AN 


OPEN  LETTEK  TO  SENATOR  MORGAN. 


Reprinted  from  the  American  Law  Review  of  May-June^  1887, 


^m'm 


ST.  LOUIS; 

1887. 


a 


^ 


THE  CANADIAN   FISHERIES   DISPUTE. 


431 


« 


THE  CANADIAN  FISHERIES  DISPUTE  — AN  OPEN 
LETTER  TO  SENATOR  MORGAN. 

Boston,  May  22,  1887. 
To  the  Hon.  John  T,  Mor  g  an  ^  Senator  from  Alabama: 

Sir  —  When  I  recall  the  thorough  information  and  ability 
which  distinguished  your  discussion  of  the  foreign  relations  con- 
nected with  the  American  fisheries,  so  far  as  they  have  been  be- 
fore the  Senate,  I  am  penetrated  with  the  feeling  that,  though 
this  open  letter  may  recall  some  of  the  facts  already  familiar  to 
you,  those  who  read  it  would  wish  that  you  were  writing  on  the 
subject  rather  than  I. 

Mr.  Jay,  in  an  open  letter  to  Senator  Evarts,  advocates  the  re- 
nunciation of  the  Treaty  of  1818  on  the  fisheries  and  a  return  to 
that  of  1783,  as  a  solution  of  present  diflSculties  more  available 
than  the  retaliation  policy. 

Without  the  consent  of  both  parties  to  these  treaties,  the  last 
could  not  well  be  set  aside  by  one  party  only ;  but,  waiving  this, 
would  such  a  step  be  of  any  avail  to  end  existing  diflBculties?  The 
obnoxious  laws  of  Canada,  so  long  as  they  stand,  would  effect- 
ually abridge  the  right  of  the  United  States,  whichever  treaty 
should  be  in  force.  The  v'vfht  to  fish  on  the  coast  of  Nova 
Scotia  within  the  three-mile  limit,  our  fishermen  consider  of  no 
value  whatever. 

It  is  true  that,  by  the  change  which  Mr.  Jay  suggests,  the  act  of 
the  British  Parliament  might  lose  its  force  on  the  mere  act  of  fish- 
ing in  the  three-mile  limit ;  but  only  two  among  the  hundred 
seizures  of  1886  have  been  for  fishing  within  that  limit.  What 
remedy  does  Mr.  Jay  give  for  the  other  ninety  and  nine  seizures, 
forfeitures  and  exclusions  made  under  color  of  Canadian  laws? 
The  Treaty  of  1783  furnishes  none,  suggests  none.  It  contains 
neither  qualified  authority  to  frequent  provincial  ports  for 
♦'wood,  water,  repairs  and  shelter,  and  for  no  other  purpose," 
nor  authority  to  frequent  them  for  any  purpose  except  to  take 


432 


THE   CANADIAN  FISHERIES   DISPUTE. 


fish  and  cure  them  on  the  unoccupied  shores.  On  Mr.  Jjiy's 
plan  our  fishing  fleet  would  be  worse  off  than  now,  for  the  Can- 
adian law  of  1886  would  have  wider  scope  over  them. 

The  possession  of  an  exclusive  fishery  within  three  miles  of 
the  shore  of  the  sea,  is  a  subject  different  from  the  right  to 
carry  on  intercourse  with  tae  shore  for  trade  ;  and  still  different 
from  the  right  of  vessels  of  one  friendly  power  to  seek  tha  ports 
of  another  to  procure  provisions,  coal  or  supplies,  which  she  may 
need  for  the  purposes  of  her  navigation  ;  and  the  right  of  any 
vessel  to  navigate  within  three  miles  of  the  coast  on  her  voyage 
to  some  other  destination,  is  still  distinct  from  the  admission  of 
an  exclusive  fishery  in  such  waters. 

The  policy  of  Great  Britain,  first  expressed  by  the  act  of  12 
Car.  II.,  had  been  to  prohibit  foreign  nations  from  intercourse 
by  sea  with  her  colonies,  either  to  import  into,  or  export  from 
them  in  their  vessels.  This  policy  was»in  force  when  the  Treaty 
of  1783  was  made.  The  rights  of  the  United  States,  therein  ac- 
knowledgedj  to  use  the  ports,  creeks  and  shores  for  the  purpose 
of  its  fishery,  conferred  no  right  to  trade  with  British  North 
America.  In  1818  the  laws  of  the  United  States  also  prohibited 
British  vessels  from  importing  from  or  exporting  to  the  colonies, 
from  the  ports  of  the  United  States,  and  continued  so  to  prohibit 
them,  long  after  the  Treaty  of  1818. 

The  Treaty  of  1818  was  distinctively  a  fishery  treaty.  We 
renounced  the  right  to  fish  within  a  certain  three-mile  limit  from 
the  shore,  but  reserved  the  right  to  our  fishermen  to  enter  **  such 
bays  and  harbors"  in  those  limits,  for  shelter,  repairs,  procur- 
ing wood  and  water,  and  for  no  other  purpose,  subject  to  regula- 
tions that  they  should  not  abuse  the  privileges  thus  retained. 
These  privileges  concern  the  safety  of  the  fishing  vessel  and 
crew,  in  continuing  its  business  beyond  the  three-mile  line,  but 
are  not  coramerciaU  and  are  entitled  to  liberal  construction  in 
their  field. 

Now,  the  Canadians  contend  that  the  words  ♦*  for  no  other  pur- 
pose" work  an  eternal  exclusion  of  our  fishermen  from  any  com- 
merce or  trade  with  British  North  America;  and  that  the  treaty 
conveys  a  jurisdiction  absolute,  and  the  exclusive  use  of  tha 
waters  of  the  ocean  thus  designated. 


w 


THE   CANADIAN   FISHERIES   DISPUTE. 


433 


These  propositions  are  eminently  unsound.  The  high  seas 
are  subject  to  other  uses  in  common  for  nations,  besides  <♦  fish- 
ery." 

Ports  and  harbors  are  subject  to  local  law,  where  no  treaty 
restrains  it,  and  wider  p'ivileges  may  be  given  foreign  vessels 
within  them  by  law  than  any  treaty  has  contracted  for.  Ex- 
ports and  imports  between  the  United  States  and  British  North 
America  by  sea,  remained  forbidden  by  laws,  as  already  stated, 
for  years  after  the  treaty  of  1818  was  made,  to  all  the  shipping 
of  each  country,  whether  merchantmen,  fishermen,  or  both. 

Mr.  Jay,  in  his  letter,  has  clearly  and  strongly  shown  that  the 
negotiators  on  each  side  of  the  treaty  of  1783,  recognizcu  the 
common  right  of  fisheries  and  the  use  of  the  coasts  and  shores  of 
British  North  America  for  fishing  purposes,  to  pertain  to  the 
United  States  equally  with  Great  Britain. 

In  a  decision  under  that  treaty,  in  the  Vice-Admiralty  Court 
in  1806,^  it  was  said  that  the  Treaty  of  1783  gave  no  authority 
to  trade  with  the  shore,  but  that  we  could  luwf nlly  send  our  own 
vessels  to  those  waters  to  supply  our  own  fishermen  there,  or 
purchase  their  cargoes,  and  that  such  vessels  might  lawfully 
anchor  in  British  harbors  on  their  route  to  tlieir  destination. 

In  1825,  after  several  efforts,  the  legislatures  of  the  two  gov- 
ernments began  to  open  trade,  and  the  act  of  Charles  II.  was- 
subsequently  repealed.  In  1830  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  dropped  their  respective  non-intercourse  laws  as  to 
British  North  America,  and  opened  their  ports  to  each  other, 
upon  being  satisfied  that  neither  imposed  on  the  other's  vessels 
"  any  restrictions  or  discriminations." 

«'  His  Majesty  declares,"  says  Mr.  Secretary  Buller,  November 
6,  1830,  *'  that  the  ships  of  and  belonging  to  the  United  States  of 
America,  may  import  from  the  United  States  aforesaid,  into  the 
British  Possessions  abroad,  goods  the  produce  of  those  States, 
and  may  export  goods  from  the  British  Possessions  abroad,  to  be 
carried  to  any  foreign  country  whatever." 

General  Jackson's  proclamation,  October  5,  1830,  says  : 
*'  British  vessels  and  their  cargoes  are  admitted  to  an   entry 


i 


VOL.  XXI 


'  Stewart's  Reports,  p.  75. 
29 


434 


THE   CANADIAN  FISHERIES    DISPUTE. 


in  tho  ports  of  the  United  States  from  the  islands,  provinces 
and  colonies  of  Great  Britain,  on  or  near  the  American  continent 
and  north  or  east  of  the  United  States." 

Thus  was  the  right  of  the  vessels  of  each  to  the  privileges  of 
foreign  commerce  in  the  ports  of  the  other  established  without 
any  class  restrictions.  Buying  and  selling  bait,  like  the  impor- 
tation or  exportation  of  it,  are  commercial  transactions,  and 
therefore,  by  the  pledged  faith  of  the  proclamation  of  1830,  open 
to  commerce  by  the  vessels  of  each  country. 

It  is  because  Canada  in  1886,  deprived  American  fisher- 
men of  the  liberty  of  buying  and  exporting  in  their  vessels,  and 
fines  or  forfeits  their  vessels  for  holding  intercourse  with  the 
shores,  that  retaliation  became  necessary  on  our  part. 

This  conduct  has  been  aggravated  by  various  rules  restricting 
and  impairing  the  treaty  right  of  our  fishermen,  and  finally 
crowned  by  an  act,  approved  November,  1886,  which  really  more 
than  revived  the  old,  repealed  non-intercourse  act  of  Charles 
II.,  except  so  far  as  exceptions  might  be  made  by  treaty  or  by 
law.  On  learning  of  this  statute  and  the  other  facts,  Congress 
empowered  the  President,  in  his  discretion,  to  suspend  intercourse 
with  Canada  in  whole  or  in  part,  thus  enabling  him  to  revive  our 
no'"  intercourse  acts  oi  1818,  which  had  offset  formerly  the  act 
of  Charles  II. 

Canada  has  begun  this  affair.  Her  excuse  is  that  the  words 
*'  for  no  other  purpose  "  in  the  Treaty  of  1818,  permanently  ex- 
clude our  fishermen.  She  disregards  the  fact  that  the  agree- 
ments  of  1830,  expressed  that  they  were  based  on  the  respective 
removal  of*'  all  restrictions  on  commerce  and  discriminations  on 
tonnage." 

It  is  a  disingenuous  excuse.  Clearly,  in  the  fishing  treaty  of 
1818,  the  words  *' for  no  other  purpose"  rebut  the  idea  that 
commercial  or  unnamed  trading  privileges  were  intended  to  be 
granted  to  vessels  of  the  United  States.  Great  Britain  had 
closed  all  her  colonial  ports  from  foreign  vessels  by  law.  She 
opened  them  in  the  same  way  by  the  proclamation  of  1830,  and 
they  stand  open  until  closed  by  law.  Since  the  proclamation, 
the  fishing  vessels  of  Canada  have  enjoyed  in  the  ports  of  the 
United  States  every  privilege  of  commerce  flowing  from  those 


\f 


f 


THR    CANADIAN    FISHERIES    DISPUTE. 


435 


proclamations.  Not  only  did  Ctuuida  know  this,  but  a  perverse 
disposition  has  induced  hor,  wliilo  continuing  in  tlicir  unrestricted 
use  and  enjoyment,  to  endeavor  to  deprive  our  fishermen  of  their 
similar  riglit  in  Canada. 

There  was,  after  1830,  no  law  prior  to  tliis  of  188(5,  wliich  ex- 
cluded our  fishermen  from  trading  or  tran8shipi)ing  cariroes  in 
Canadian  ports  destined  for  the  United  States.  Canada,  however, 
claims  that  the  British  act  of  1819  excludes  American  fishermen 
from  *'  buying  biiit  "  in  her  ports.  By  that  statute,  if  a  foreign 
vessel,  within  the  waters  where  the  right  to  fish  has  been 
renounced  by  the  United  States,  or  any  persons  on  board, 
*'  shall  bo  found  fishing  or  to  have  been  fishing,  o»*  preparing  to 
fish  "  within  such  distance  of  the  coasts,  etc.,  the  vessel  shall 
be  seized,  prosecuted,  condemned,  etc. 

The  clause  states  that  the  method  of  proceeding  shall  be  the 
same  as  in  proceedings  under  customs  or  navigation  acts.  The 
preamble  of  the  statute  reads,  "  to  make  regulations  respecting 
the  taking  and  curing  of  fish,"  etc.  This  does  not  look  like  a  law 
to  prevent  the  buying  and  exporting  of  bait,  a  matter  at  th«t 
time  decisively  covered  by  the  act  of  12  Charles  II.,  then  in  full 
force. 

Careful  examination  was  made  at  the  time  of  the  Halifax 
Commission,  of  all  the  records  of  seizures  of  American  fishermen, 
and  it  was  found  that,  prior  to  1870,  not  one  had  been  charged 
with  "  buying  bait"  as  a  violation  of  the  clause  "  preparing  to 
fish." 

In  1870,  for  the  first  time,  this  construction  was  set  up,  and 
two  American  vessels  seized,  rmd,  among  other  matters,  lil)eled 
for  buying  bait  in  open  port,  in  alleged  infringement  of  the  act 
of  1819. 

In  one  court,  the  judge  (Young),  said  incidentally,  **  I  take  it 
that  is  a  preparing  to  fish,"  and  discussed  the  construction  no 
further.  In  the  other  case,  the  White  Fiiwn,  another  judge 
(Hazen)  possessed  of  high  legal  acumen,  gave  a  carefully  consid- 
ered opinion.  He  said  :  *'  Assuming  the  fact  that  such  purchase 
establishes  a  preparing  to  fish,  which  I  do  not  admit,  I  think,  be- 
fore a  forfeiture  can  be  incurred,  it  must  be  shown  that  the 
preparations  were  for  an  illegal  fishing  in  British  waters." 


436 


THE    CANADIAN   FISIIEHIKS    DISPUTE. 


This  is  a  sounfl  construction.  The  statnto  professes  to  ronju- 
lato  fishing  in  certain  limits,  not  customs.  Tlio  offense  detiiu'd 
as  "  i)rei)aring  to  ti>h  witiiin  sueh  limits,"  is  tlic  sequent  of  tiie 
prohibition  ♦'  to  tai^c,  dry  or  euro  tisjj  witliin  sueh  limits,"  and 
in  no  sense  is  a  reguhition  of  customs.  Broadly,  every  movement 
of  a  fishing  vessel,  even  procuring  wood,  water,  re[)!iirs  or  shel- 
ter, or  sailing  outward  bound,  is  a  [)reparati()n  for  Hsliing,  but  not 
for  fishing  within  the  limit  assigned  as  British  waters.  Thus 
Judge  Hazen's  legitimate  discrimination,  thatti  e  clause  is  to  pro- 
tect the  fish  in  the  three-mile  limit,  saves  the  clause  of  the  stat- 
ute from  positive  antagonism  to  the  Treaty  of  1818. 

In  neither  of  these  cases  did  the  pleadings  raise  the  point  that 
subsequent  laws  and  proclamations  had  opened  tiio  trade  of  the 
colonies  to  foreign  vessels  ;  and,  eonseciucntly,  had  the  act  of  1819 
intended  what  the  Crown  claimed  it  did,  it  would  still  bo  super- 
seded by  the  later  acts,  legalizing  such  trade  in  bait,  and  fall  into 
limbo  with  the  act  of  12  Charles  II.  Consequently  neither  of 
the  judges  expressed  any  opinion  on  this  point. 

There  is,  however,  a  decision  of  some  consequence  on  the 
point.  In  1877,  before  the  joint  commission  which  awarded 
$5,500,000  damages  against  the  United  States,  Canada  made  a 
claim  that  bu3dng  bait  in  port  was  an  incident  of  the  Treaty  of 
1871,  and  should  be  valued.  The  counsel  for  the  United  States 
claimed  that  it  was  a  commercial  privilege  which  dio  lot  spring 
from  this  treaty. 

The  commission  decided  unanimously  for  the  United  States, 
and  Canada  and  Great  Britain  acquiesced  in  the  decision,  one  of 
the  members.  Sir  A.  Gait,  protesting  and  acquiescing. 

From  1877  to  1886  our  vessels  continued  without  opposition 
to  buy  bait  in  Canadian  ports.  This  is  proof  that  she  considered 
that  the  proclamations  of  1830  had  opened  her  trade  with 
American  fishing  vessels.  But  in  May,  1886,  without  making  a 
new,  or  repealing  an  old  law,  Canada  interfered  with  and  seized 
American  vessels  for  buying  bait  in  her  ports  and  taking  it  on 
board,  justifying  her  spoliation  on  that  abandoned  and  exploded 
ground,  that  it  was  a  "  preparing  to  fish." 

Her  e3'es  were  blind  and  her  ears  were  deaf  to  that  fifty-six 
years  of  open  trade,  in  the  enjoyment  of  which  at  the  very  day 


THE    CANADIAN   FISHERIES    DISPUTE. 


437 


and  hour  of  tho  first  soizuro,  that  of  tho  D.  J.  A<hiin><,  Ciinadiiin 
vessob  were  lying  in  her  home  port,  Gh)Ucoriter,  actually  buying 
bait  and  other  sii|)i)lie.s  for  deep  .sea  fishing;  as  they  were  to  the 
decision  of  tho  Halifax  Coinuiissiou  that  ♦'  buying  bait  "  was  a 
coniMiercial,  and  not  a  fishing  or  treaty  transaction. 

I  shall  not  discuss  whether  it  is  her  right ;  but,  so  far  as  known, 
she  hiis  persistently  ignored  every  British  statute,  except  the  act 
of  18 li),  and  this  she  luis  superseded  or  reinforced  by  legislating 
on  the  subject  over  again,  making  new  acts  to  change  the 
cflfects  of  a  treaty,  already  for  forty  years  in  force  before  this 
present  Canada  was  incor[)oiatod,  -r-  a  treaty  made  before  she  was 
born  and  to  which  she  was  not  a  party. 

Canada  excels  in  the  inconsistency  of  her  position.  Thus, 
whilst  denying  the  privileges  of  commerce  or  intercourse  to  our 
fishing  vessels,  she  restricts  their  treaty  privileges  through  the 
clauses  of  her  customs  laws  regulating  trading  vessels.  Tf  these 
apply,  surely  our  vessels  are  entitled  to  thu'  benefits  of  that  com- 
mercial intc!  course  they  are  made  to  regulate. 

From  17i>3,  tho  TTnited  States  have  issued,  at  request,  to  its 
licensed  fishing  vessels,  permits  to  engage  in  trade  at  foreign 
ports.  Clothed  with  these  papers,  our  licensed  fishing  vessels 
have  visited  all  the  ports  of  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific,  during 
almost  a  century.  Canada  alone,  and  only  in  188G,  has  refused 
to  respect  the  authority  of  the  United  States  to  document  her 
•own  vessels  in  her  own  way  to  engage  in  commerce.  Tho  *«  Reg- 
ister "  and  the  "Enrollment  and  License"  with  ♦'permit  to 
trade,"  equally  express  tho  authority  of  the  government  that 
the  vessel,  bearing  them  may  engage  in  foreign  trade.  It  is 
willfulness  to  argue  that,  because  our  "  permit  to  trade  "  could 
not  open  colonial  ports  closed  by  law  from  foreign  trade, 
therefore,  it  was  not  entitled  to  respect  in  ports  which  had  by 
law  been  opened  to  trade  with  all  vessels  of  the  United  States. 
Neither  the  Treaty  of  1818,  the  act  of  1819,  nor  the  proclama- 
tions of  1830  name  or  restrict  the  forms  of  papers  which  either 
party  shall  use  for  its  vessels  visiting  the  ports  of  the  other. 

Neither  national  usajj-e  nor  the  lav/  of  nations  forbids  foreign 
fishing  vessels  from  seeking  the  ports  of  i.  friendly  nation  to 
buy  provisions,  stores  or  bait  that  they  need;  yet  Canada  bars 


438 


THE   CANADIAN   FISHERIES   DISPUTE. 


her  ports  to  ours,  whilst  their  fishing  vessels  still  enjoy  all  these 
privileges  in  our  ports. 

The  Canadian  Act,  approved  November,  1886,  goes  farther 
than  a  denial,  and  proposes  to  confiscate  our  fishing  vessels  when- 
ever want  of  provisions,  or  other  distress  than  **  wood,  water 
and  repairs,"  —  when  tides,  currents,  fogs,  the  accidents  or  exi- 
gencies of  navigation,  or  any  other  cause  not  previously  defined  in 
a  statute  or  treaty,  —  shall  bring  them  within  *'  British  waters  " 
and  within  the  grasp  of  her  cruisers.  Can  that  be  friendly  which 
thus  abjures  the  unwritten  law  of  nations,  and  the  common  court- 
esies of  humanity? 

If  these  are  not  the  hostilities  by  sea  which  the  Treaty  of 
1814  proposed  to  end,  they  are  their  counterpart.  Will  Canada 
attempt  the  thin  excuse  that  her  government  does  not  intend 
literally  to  execute  this  Algcrine  law  of  exclusion  and  forfeiture? 

Its  menace  of  hostility  to  the  human  race  remains. 

The  Canadian  Parliament  shows  imperial  ideas  in  its  act  of 
1886.  British  statutes  do  not  reveal  any  grant  to  it  of  either 
exclusive  or  concurrent  jurisdiction  over  ♦'  British  waters,"  out- 
side of  ports  and  harl)ors.  Great  Britain  has  not  excluded  for- 
eigners from  their  use,  except  "  for  fishing."  Canada  overrides 
all  this  tacit  permission  and  declares  every  foreign  vessel  for- 
feited, which  enters  "British  waters"  for  any  purpose  not 
permitted  by  treaty  or  law  of  the  United  Kingdom  or  Canada,  for 
the  time  being  in  force.  Thus  the  law  of  nations  is  set  aside  and 
British  waters  declared  by  her  to  be  a  maelstrom,  sucking  in  and 
forfeiting  every  foreigner,  whom  chance,  accident  or  necessity 
draws  within  its  vortex. 

That  there  may  be  no  mistake  that  this  is  indeed  a  vortex,  let 
me  recall  the  fact  that  paragraph  10  of  ihe  act  of  1868,  to  which 
this  is  an  amendment,  declares  that,  in  seizures  under  the  act, 
*♦  the  burden  of  proof  shall  be  on  the  claimant."  Consequently, 
under  the  new  law,  the  necessary  proof  on  the  part  of  the  Crown 
is  reduced  to  the  mere  fact  that  the  seized  vessel  had  entered 
*'  British  waters  ;  "  it  is  for  the  claimant  to  prove,  if  he  can,  some 
'*  treaty  or  law  of  the  United  Kingdom  or  of  Canada  for  the  time 
being  in  force,"  which  gave  him  a  permit  to  enter  such  waters  for 
the  purpose  for  which  he  entered,  and,  if  he  can,  to  show  what  it  was 


THE   CANADIAN   FISHERIES   DISPUTE. 


439 


r 


beyond  a  doubt.  This  is  smoothly  delusive.  Courts  of  law  are 
not  arbitrators  to  review  the  foreign  policy  of  their  governments. 
They  must  take  the  construction  of  a  treaty  as  the  executive  for 
the  time  being  gives  it.  Such  construction  has  been  made  by 
Canada.  The  Hon.  George  E.  Foster,  Minister  of  Marine  and 
Fisheries,  on  March  5,  1886,  issued  a  '*  warning"  declaring 
*'  that,  by  virtue  of  the  treaty  provisions  and  act  of  Parliament 
above  recited  (Canada,  1868),  all  foreign  vessels  or  boats  are 
forbidden  from  fishing  or  taking  fish  by  any  means  whatever, 
within  three  marine  miles  of  any  of  the  coasts,  creeks  or  bays  of 
Canada,  or  to  enter  such  bays,  harbors  and  creeks  except  for  the 
purpose  of  shelter  and  of  repairing  damages  therein,  of  purchas- 
ing wood  and  obtaining  water,  and  for  no  other  purpose  what- 
ever. Of  all  which  you  will  take  notice  and  govern  yourselves 
accordingly." 

In  June  a  statute,  ratified  in  November,  enlarged  this  prohibi- 
tion and  declared  entering  British  waters  a  cause  of  forfeiture. 

With  the  treaty  thus  construed  by  official  Canada,  and  I  am 
not  sure  but  I  may  say  by  official  Great  Britian,  this  law  will 
supersede  in  Canadian  courts  the  acts  elsewhere  referred  to. 
The  function  of  the  court  is  reduced,  like  that  of  a  prize  court,  to 
rendering  judgment  against  the  property  of  the  foreigner,  leaving 
the  crown  to  satisfy  the  unfortunate  claimants'  government  of  the 
lawfulness  of  the  spoliation.  Canada  says,  practically,  but  one 
law  covers  an  American  vessel  entering  British  waters,  the  law 
of  confiscation. 

This  statute  of  1886  professes  to  be  '*  an  act  to  regulate  fish- 
ing by  foreign  vessels,"  and  hides  from  cursory  observation,  with 
great  adroitness,  the  impaling  barbs  which  lacerate  the  rights  of 
navigation  and  commercial  relations. 

It  is  believed  that  no  case  has  yet  arisen  under  its  provisions. 

The  British  Parliament,  in  creating  the  present  Canada,  said 
she  should  have  powers  to  perform  the  obligations  of  Canada,  as 
a  province  of  the  British  Empire,  toward  foreign  countries,  aris- 
ing under  an^'  treaties  between  the  empire  and  such  foreign  coun- 
try. But  who  empowered  her  to  define  the  obligations  of  the 
other  party  to  a  treaty  not  made  with  Canada,  or  to  exact  them 
from  the  citizens  of  such  party  ? 


440 


THE   CANADIAN    FISHERIES    DISPUTE. 


I  do  not  profess  to  determine  whether  the  Ciiniidliin  or  the  Im- 
periiil  Piirliament  is  supreme  und  conclusive  on  subjects  which  the 
latter  has  legislated  upon,  nor  will  I  g^o  further  than  to  contend 
that  the  proclamations  of  1830,  with  their  attendant  legislation, 
constituted  a  basic  regulation  of  the  commerce  of  British  North 
America,  between  the  two  powers,  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States,  pervading  a  broader  sphere  than  the  colonies  now  repre- 
sented by  Canada,  viz.,  all  the  British  Provinces  in  the  West 
Indies  and  North  America,  etc.  ;  that  in  the  nature  of  things  it 
is  an  InipcM'ial  commercial  arrangement  for  all  of  them  with  the 
United  States,  and  beyond  the  power  of  one  of  the  colonies 
affected  by  it  to  alter,  change  or  retract  from,  without  the 
particular  and  special  authority  thereto  of  the  Imperial  Parlia- 
ment, from  Avhich  it  emanated  on  the  one  side.  Such  authority 
has  not  been  given. 

Legal  minds  must  assent  that  otherwise  any  of  the  numerous 
colonies  may,  by  local  legislation,  destroy  the  contract  and  sub- 
ject the  other  colonies  and  the  Imperial  government  to  unknown 
continjrejicies.  Otherwise  than  the  above  susrsjestion,  I  have  dis- 
cussed  Canada's  action  on  these  proclamations,  from  her  own 
assumed  standpoint  that  she  had  full  power  frotn  Great  Britain. 

A  crown  lawyer  should  also  ask  where  Canada  got  tlie  right  of 
concurrent  legislation  with  the  Imperial  Parliament  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  act  of  1819,  and  the  fishing  treaty?  This  government 
renounced  to  Great  Britain  its  right  to  take  fish  on  certain  shores, 
but  not  to  Canada.  If  the  latter  has  an  independent  jurisdic- 
tion, it  has  no  claim  under  that  treaty. 

The  act  of  1819  empowered  the  Privy  Council  of  Great  Brit- 
ain to  make  regulations  to  prevent  the  abuse  of  the  use  of  ports, 
harbors  and  creeks  of  that  part  of  British  North  America  which 
the  Treaty  of  1818  secured  to  American  fishermen.  The  Cana- 
dian  Parliament,  impropriating  the  Privy  Council,  has  de- 
fined by  its  statute  more  offenses  and  the  same  offenses,  and 
declared  other  penaUies  and  higher  ones,  and  made  other  dispofi- 
itions  of  the  proceeds. 

In  the  cases  of  D.  J.  Adams  and  Ella  M.  Doughty,  the  libels 
claim  that  both  these  acts  are  infringed  and  both  sets  of  penalties 
incurred.     Which  has  the  paramount  right?     Lord  Salisbury,  in 


i 


THE   CANADIAN   FISHERIES   DISPUTE. 


441 


. 


the  Fortune  Bay  correspondence,  admitted  that  subsequent  local 
laws  will  not  limit  treaty  rights.     Will  he  stick  to  this  now? 

The  Canadians  befog  their  argument  with  an  idea  that  the 
Treaty  of  1818  works  forfeitures  of  itself.  English  courts,  lilio 
ours,  have  decided  that  without  legislation  no  penalties  can  be 
defined  or  exacted  of  infringers.  Therefore  the  act  of  1819  was 
passed  to  cover  the  fishing  and  harbor  subjects.  The  words 
♦'and  for  no  other  purpose"  did  not  need  new  legislation,  be- 
cause commerce  by  sea  of  all  vessels  of  the  United  States,  was  then 
denied  under  the  act  of  Charles  II.,  closinir  colonies  ajrainst  it. 

When,  interdependently  and  by  concert,  in  1830,  the  United 
States  made  trade  by  sea  to  and  from  Canada  and  all  British 
America,  and  the  West  Indies  free  in  ail  vessels,  and  Great  Britain 
did  the  same,  occasion  for  commercial  restriction  or  forfeiture  to 
enforce  it  ceased  equally  and  completely  to  all  our  vessels,  not 
only  there,  but  in  all  the  British  North  American  colonies  and 
isles. 

The  removal  was  as  broad  and  comprehensive  as  the  prohibi- 
tion previously  has  been.  There  were  no  reservations  in  the 
proclamations,  either  of  Great  Britain  or  of  the  United  States,  iu 
1830. 

Great  Britain  had  exhausted  her  will  to  keep  foreign  vessels 
out  of  her  colonial  trade,  and  now  invited  them  to  come  there 
for  the  purposes  previously  f()r])iddcn.  After  fifty-five  years  of 
prosperous  enjoyment  of  the  commercial  privileges  opened  to 
her  by  these  proclamations,  Canada  now  seeks  to  renew  the  pro- 
hibitions of  the  statute  of  Charles  II.,  so  far  as  will  prevent  our 
securing  supplies  in  her  ports  for  vessels  engaged  in  the  deep 
sea  fishery,  but  continues  to  enjoy  all  the  benefits  of  those 
proclamations,  including  procuring  su[)plies  for  her  own  inshore 
and  deep  sea  fisheries,  and  buying  bait  in  our  ports;  which,  in 
1886  and  1887,  she  did  to  the  annual  extent  of  ten  thousand 
barrels.     This  she  proposes  to  effect  by  indirect  ways. 

Such  trifling  with  mutual  commercial  obligations  has  not  de- 
ceived Congress,  nor  has  it  overlooked  the  serious  restrictions  on 
the  right  guaranteed  by  treaty,  nor  the  invasions  of  ordinary 
hospitality  prescribed  by  the  laws  of  nations.  The  conditions 
of  trade  are  transitory  and  depend  on  the  laws  of  the  countries 


442 


THE   CANADIAN  FISHERIES  DISPUTE. 


engaged  therein  ;  and  1  have  pointed  out  the  fact  that  no  law  of 
Canada  pretends  to  repeal  the  British  acts  or  proclamations  of 
1830,  as  one  striking  evidence  of  the  evasive  nature  of  her  pre- 
tended justification. 

So  long  as  the  flag  of  Great  Britain  flies  over  Canada,  our  rights, 
under  the  Treaty  of  1818,  are  permanent;  and  though  we  may 
regret  Canada's  unwillingness  to  live  up  to  them,  that  is  no 
reason  for  yielding  them  up,  nor  for  not  persistently  demanding 
redress  for  the  injuries  inflicted  on  our  fishermen,  and  the  full 
measure  of  that  which  is  accorded  us  in  the  treaty.  The  list  of 
these  spoliations  is  long;  and  the  sense  of  wrong  inflicted  on  us 
has  led  Congress  unanimously  to  enact  measures  of  retaliation, 
and  to  place  their  control  in  the  hands  of  the  President. 

The  rights,  elaborately  defined  by  treaty,  which  we  possess 
along  the  coasts  and  in  the  bays,  harbors  and  ports  of  British 
North  America,  belong  as  fully  to  the  United  States  as  does  the 
Capitol  or  the  White  House  at  Washington.  They  are  the 
trophies  of  the  centuries  of  privation,  toil  and  bloodshed,  through 
which  our  colonial  ancestors  secured  themselves  from  foreign 
influences. 

There  is  not  a  foot  of  British  North  America,  from  Lake  Supe- 
rior to  the  Atlantic,  to  the  winning  of  which  from  France  our 
American  ancestors  did  not  bear  their  share  in  arms.  The  mem- 
ories of  Lake  George,  Frontenac,  Detroit,  Quebec  and  Louisbourg 
are  our  heirlooms  as  well  as  England's.  Great  Britain's  fishing 
rights,  in  or  adjacent  to  what  is  now  British  North  America, 
were  never  exclusive.  Whatever  pertained  to  the  great  com- 
mon of  fisheries,  whatever  enured  from  the  conquest  of  Canada* 
equally  pertained  and  enured  to  us  as  to  her.  The  Treaty  of 
1783  regulated  mutual  joint  and  several  uses  in  a  part  of  these 
old  common  or  acquired  fishery  rights,  and  that  of  1818  was  a 
partial  re-arrangement  thereof.  In  said  treaties,  no  pretension 
can  be  found  that  Great  Britian  then  or  ever  before  had  any  ex- 
clusive ownership  over  the  fisheries  of  the  North-east. 

Canada  also  has  refused  to  perform  the  obligation  of  the  29th 
article  of  the  Treaty  of  1871,  admitting  merchandise  destined 
for  the  United  States  to  a  free  transit  across  her  territory^ 
whilst  she  enjoys  a  similar  right  from  the  United  States. 


mmmmmmmt 


THE    CANADIAN   FISHERIES   DISPUTE. 


443 


I  shall  not  detail  the  abridgement  of  our  treaty  rights  on  her 
coasts  that  she  is  persistently  carrying  out,  nor  dwell  on  the 
mockery  of  justice  exhibited  by  the  legal  proceedings  which  she  has 
invented,  to  squeeze  fines  and  forfeitures  out  of  American  owners  ; 
and  though  I  might  hint  at  the  complacency  with  which  Great 
Britain  pigeon-holes  the  remonstrances  of  the  diplomatic  repre- 
sentatives of  the  United  States,  and  evades  their  complaints  as  to 
the  present  conditions,  by  throwing  out  suggestions  for  new 
treaties,  as  the  harpooner  throws  a  tub  to  an  enraged  whale  to 
divert  him  from  the  boat,  —  yet  I  forbear  comment  on  what  is 
still  under  diplomatic  discussion. 

The  commercial  course  of  Ciinada  concerns  Congress  directly. 

The  remedy  must  be  initiated  there.  The  Treasury  Depart- 
ment, through  the  report  of  its  late  distinguished  chief,  Mr. 
Manning,  the  committee  of  the  Senate,  that  of  the  House,  the 
State  Department,  and  the  President  in  his  message  of  December 
1, 1886,  have  borne  unanimous  testimony  of  the  *'  unfriendly  and 
unwarrantable  treatment  by  the  local  authorities  of  the  maritime 
provinces  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada  "  which  American  fishermen 
have  sustained.  Each  house  of  Congress  has  unanimously 
expressed  a  like  opinion,  and  legislated  in  accord,  authorizing 
retaliation.  Does  Canada  indulge  the  delusion  that,  by  declin- 
ing to  live  up  to  the  proclamations  for  over  fifty  years  in  force, 
which  opened  commerce  by  sea  between  her  and  us,  and  by 
declining  to  live  up  to  the  29th  article  of  the  Treaty  of  1871, 
she  can  exact  new  commercial  privileges  from  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States  ? 

The  deep  sea  fisheries  of  the  United  States  are  not  dependent 
on  the  good  or  evil  will  of  Canada.  Our  fisheries  defy  the  worst 
that  Canada  can  do  by  legislation.  She  may  drive  our  vessels 
from  her  ports,  make  her  shores  as  fertile  in  confiscations  as  they 
ar  J  -  shipwrecks.  Our  fishing  interests  have  found  her  profes- 
sions of  friendship  more  disastrous  than  shipwreck  or  confisca- 
tions or  non-intercourse. 

Treaties  with  Great  Britain  in  the  past  have  inflicted  such  in- 
jury on  our  navigation  engaged  in  the  fisheries,  that  new  ones 
bode  further  injury.  Strong  evidence  of  good  faith,  by  living 
up  to  commercial  agreements  solemnly  made,  must  be  furnished 


444 


THE    CANADIAN   FISHERIES   DISPUTE. 


by  Canada  and  Great  Britain,  before  any  new  scheme  of  treaty 
can  be  made  acceptable  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  in 
Congress  assembled.  Experience  teaches  that  we  must  hold  the 
weapon  of  immediate  retaliation  always  in  hand,  to  secure  good 
faith  from  her. 

Mr.  Jay's  letter  admirably  discusses  the  true  meaning  and  in- 
tent of  the  Treaty  of  1783,  illustrated  by  the  avowals  of  the  nego- 
tiators on  each  side,  who  appear  singularly  unanimous  in  sustain- 
ing John  Adams'  account,  that  it  was  intended  to  admit  the 
equality  of  our  fishing  rights  on  the  coasts  of  British  North 
America.  Notwithstanding  the  objections  to  this  plan,  Mr. 
Jay's  letter  is  a  valuable  contribution  to  the  literature  of  the 
fishery  question. 

The  policy  of  independence  that  leads  nations  to  build  their 
own  ships  of  war,  and  make  their  own  arms,  applies  with  equal 
force  to  carrying  on  a  deep  sea  fishery,  that  nursery  of  seamen 
which  furnishes  the  militia  of  the  seas. 

An  aspiration  of  Great  Britain  to  monopolize  the  fishery  for 
the  world,  or  the  building  of  war  ships  and  arms  for  all  nations, 
would  excite  universal  antagonism.  When  her  acts  tend  to  ira- 
pair  or  destroy  the  fisheries  of  another  nation,  the  suspicion  that 
she  seeks  to  increase  her  own  and  diminish  the  naval  power  of 
that  other,  naturally  arises,  as  it  did  when  she  destroyed  the  Dan- 
ish fleet  in  time  of  peace. 

Great  Britain  carries  too  valuable  a  share  of  the  commerce  of 
the  world  to  foment  occasions  for  retaliation.  There  was  an  en- 
tirety in  these  compacts  of  1830  in  the  exchange  of  privileges  ;  it 
was  all  for  all.  What  Great  Britain  obtained  has  largely  bene- 
fited all  her  possessions  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic.  The 
question  involves  all  their  commerce  with  the  United  States. 
Most  assuredly  no  one  colony  will  be  allowed  by  us  to  repudiate 
such  parts  as  it  pleases  and  enjoy  the  rest  of  that  agreement. 
Having  supplanted  our  commercial  marine  in  our  carrying  trade, 
does  she  think  to  destroy  the  last  sticks  which  bear  our  flag  in  the 
fisheries?" 

Our  fishermen  are  not  dependent  on  British  America  for  sup- 
plies of  bait,  nor  is  their  commerce  vital  to  our  welfare.  Do  not 
for  a  moment  think  they  are  suppliants  for  favors  from  provinces- 


\ 


THE   CANADIAN   FISHERIES   DISPUTE. 


445 


or  empire,  because  this  country  asks  that  its  own  shall  not  be 
trespassed  upon.  Wo  need  no  treaty  aid.  It  is  Canada  that 
needs  it,  not  the  United  States. 

We  cannot  be  expected  to  make  a  treaty  that  will  aid  Canada  in 
her  avowed  policy  of  destroying,  as  far  as  she  can,  our  deep  sea 
fisheries,  nor  can  we  reasonably  be  asked  to  abandon  our  rights 
in  order  to  effect  that  purpose,  nor  will  Congress  consent  to  leg- 
islate that  purpose  into  effect. 

Since  writing  the  foregoing,  Mr.  Bayard's  proposals  for  an  ar- 
rangement of  details,  under  the  Treaty  of  1818,  that  will  produce 
a  hari  onious  co-operation  of  the  two  governments,  and  supply 
our  fishermen  with  fixed  rules  in  relation  to  its  clauses,  has  been 
published. 

This  fair  proposal  was  rejected  last  autumn  by  the  British 
Ministry,  and  a  counter  proposal  made  that  we  should  purchase 
certain  rights  of  them. 

There  is  one  pertinent  answer.  We  do  not  desire  to  buy  what 
Great  Britain  thus  offers  to  sell,  nor  do  we  consider  it  worth  buy- 
\n(r.  We  will  not  buy  what  is  our  own.  Great  Britain  is  hard  to 
convince  of  these  facts,  but  she  may  rely  upon  it  that  the  people 
consider  the  continuance  of  the  fishery,  under  its  flag,  as  of  some 
importance.  Great  Britain  may  evade  or  dally  with  the  very 
candid  proposal  of  Mr.  Bayard  for  harmonious  living  under  the 
present  treaty  ;  but  in  the  end  it  is  the  issue  she  must  meet,  and 
meanwhile,  so  long  as  our  commerce  is  interrupted  and  preyed  on 
by  Canada,  such  retaliation  as  Congress  has  enacted  or  may  enact 
will  be  relied  on  for  our  just  defense. 

I  am,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

Charles  L.  Woodbury. 


